I guess we'll just agree to disagree. My understanding of the Buddha, the Commentaries and modern teachers has nothing to do with "wallowing in dukkha" and "po faced meditators". Ass far as I can see you are creating distracting strawmen that miss the point.

If "the point" of this topic is to valorize the blog entries of Ron Crouch, then you're right... we will have to "agree to disagree".

Nyanaponika Thera in The Roots Of Good And Evil wrote:The three unwholesome roots are not restricted to the strong manifestation suggested by the English terms greed, hatred and delusion. To understand their range it is important to know that in Pali these three terms stand for all degrees of intensity, even the weakest, of the three defilements, and for all varieties in which these appear. In their weak degrees their unwholesome influence on character and kammic consequences is, of course, not as grave as that of their stronger forms. But even weak forms may carry the risk of either growing stronger or making a person’s character more susceptible to their graver manisfestations. A fuller view of the various forms the unwholesome roots assume may be gained from a list of their synonyms, partly taken from the Dhammasaṅgaṇī, the first book of the Abhidhamma Piṭaka.

Dhp5 wrote:Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.

Metta,Retro.

"When we transcend one level of truth, the new level becomes what is true for us. The previous one is now false. What one experiences may not be what is experienced by the world in general, but that may well be truer. (Ven. Nanananda)

“I hope, Anuruddha, that you are all living in concord, with mutual appreciation, without disputing, blending like milk and water, viewing each other with kindly eyes.” (MN 31)

"What do you think, Ananda: Which is harder to do, harder to master — to shoot arrows through a tiny keyhole without missing, one right after the other, or to take a horsehair split into seven strands and pierce tip with a tip?"

"This, lord, is harder to do, harder to master — to take a horsehair split into seven strands and pierce tip with a tip."http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.045.than.html

"And they, Ananda, pierce what is even harder to pierce, those who pierce, as it actually is present, that 'This is stress'; who pierce, as it actually is present, that 'This is the origination of stress'... 'This is the cessation of stress'... 'This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress.'

"Therefore, Ananda, your duty is the contemplation, 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress.' Your duty is the contemplation, 'This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress.'"

[Kamada:]So hard it is to do, Lord, It's so very hard to do![Buddha:]But still they do what's hard to do, Who steady themselves with virtue. For one pursuing homelessness, Content arrives, and with it joy.[Kamada:]So hard it is to get, Lord, This content of which you speak![Buddha:]But still they get what's hard to get, Who delight in a tranquil mind. The mind of those, both day and night, Delights in its development.[Kamada:]So hard it is to tame, Lord, This mind of which you speak![Buddha:]But still they tame what's hard to tame, Who delight in senses at peace. Cutting through mortality's net, The nobles, Kamada, proceed.[Kamada:]So hard it is to go, Lord, On this path that gets so rough![Buddha:]Still nobles, Kamada, proceed On paths both rough and hard to take. Those who are less than noble fall On their heads when the path gets rough. But for nobles the path is smooth — For nobles smooth out what is rough!

Translator's note

This plaintive cry of the deva Kamada, concerning the difficulty of Buddhist practice, will resonate with almost anyone who has embarked on the temporary homelessness of a retreat at IMS or elsewhere. The steady reply of the Buddha here admonishes Kamada to overcome his weaknesses and find the nobility within himself to tread the noble path.

"When we transcend one level of truth, the new level becomes what is true for us. The previous one is now false. What one experiences may not be what is experienced by the world in general, but that may well be truer. (Ven. Nanananda)

“I hope, Anuruddha, that you are all living in concord, with mutual appreciation, without disputing, blending like milk and water, viewing each other with kindly eyes.” (MN 31)

Hi there - a friend of mine sent me a message this morning that there was an interesting discussion going on over here about my essay "Why Meditate" and that I should drop by and check it out. It looks like it really hit a nerve with some people and that is kind of what I intended with it so it looks like the message is getting out.

I wanted to offer myself up for questions directly about this essay and what I meant by it, since there is a lot of speculation here. Despite having a last name that is suspiciously close to "grouch" and having written such a rough essay, I'm actually a pretty easy going person! I really enjoy answering questions, so don't hesitate to ask me directly. What would you like to know?

P.S. I may take a while to get back to you today but will be back in the evening and will be happy to answer then.

The essay at the original post was part of some research I was doing in regards to meditating.

To put it in perspective here is a bit more of what I found.

For the past few years Willoughby Britton has been doing research into negative side effects of meditation(she did an interview on the podcast Buddhist Geeks, the transcript of which is here. A lot of the things she found were, to me, pretty disturbing. People experiencing strong fear because they no longer have a sense of self and can't reconcile that with performing mundane actions(which resulted in words spontaneously coming out of their mouths or walking happening without intervention on their part because there was no "they" to intervene) is one of quite a few examples she mentioned in the podcast. The other points was that all of the teachers interviewed were quite explicit in that they believed that 100% of students would go through this negative period she observed and that this period(defined by her as "clinical impairment", effects that hamper everyday interactions with reality) averaged out at over 3 years.

Honestly, as a practitioner I'm not 100% sure that the end goal is worth it(as I'm skeptical of any form of existence of consciousness after death).

Welcome Ron! Though I found your essay to be a little dramatic, I also appreciated the overall sentiment and that it was unique in portraying meditation as something other than the way it is portrayed in popular culture as bohemian, self-help, or therapy on the cheap. I also identified with your notion of the actual why of meditation being a hard to put into words feeling that something isn't right=what Buddha was saying about the 1st NT. I believe I have come across it before, but can't recall where (Thanissaro or maybe Nanananda, perhaps Stephen Batchelor?).

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Dhamma_newb,

dhamma_newb wrote:Isn't "dark night" just a term used to refer to certain unpleasant stages described in Mahasi Sayadaw's Progress of Insight where one can get stuck? Or if you practice is it just a straight shot through the stages right to Nibbana?

I'm not really the one to ask. Perhaps someone with involvement in that approach might be able to explain.

Metta,Retro.

Thanks for making your(self) available for discussion.

P.S. For those familiar with her story perhaps Sister Vajira would be a good example of someone stuck in the "Dark Night"?

Ron Crouch wrote:Hi there - a friend of mine sent me a message this morning that there was an interesting discussion going on over here about my essay "Why Meditate" and that I should drop by and check it out. It looks like it really hit a nerve with some people and that is kind of what I intended with it so it looks like the message is getting out.

I wanted to offer myself up for questions directly about this essay and what I meant by it, since there is a lot of speculation here. Despite having a last name that is suspiciously close to "grouch" and having written such a rough essay, I'm actually a pretty easy going person! I really enjoy answering questions, so don't hesitate to ask me directly. What would you like to know?

P.S. I may take a while to get back to you today but will be back in the evening and will be happy to answer then.

Very good, thank you.

In your essay at the end you had the following,

Ron Crouch from the essay wrote:Even though the sense of “I” doesn’t know why, there is still a drive that impels some people to meditate. It is an undercurrent in your life that nags at you that is much deeper than the “I.” You may not fully understand what it is, and you will likely express it in all kinds of ways, but when you hear that there is a way to wake up from the dream of the self, you will be intrigued.

That part confuses me a little. The way I read it can be summed up as "You should meditate because some deep part of you wants to meditate." Was that what you were trying to convey? If it was, and I apologize if this is offensive, that is a circular argument.

The main thrust of your essay seems to be, "You should meditate because you want Enlightenment." But then that answers the question with an equally vague term, that being "Enlightenment". Considering the very significant perils of meditation that you brought up, could you speak briefly on what Enlightenment is and why it would be worth the perils? Also, do you think it is still worth it if reincarnation doesn't exist?

Ron Crouch wrote:I wanted to offer myself up for questions directly about this essay and what I meant by it, since there is a lot of speculation here. Despite having a last name that is suspiciously close to "grouch" and having written such a rough essay, I'm actually a pretty easy going person! I really enjoy answering questions, so don't hesitate to ask me directly. What would you like to know?

Since the difficulties you point out appear to be consistent with statements in the Suttas (which I've quoted above) and Commentaries, and with what I've gathered from listening to modern teachers and discussions with fellow practitioners, I don't have any particular problem with what you wrote.

Perhaps you could address the particular point that retrofuturist makes:

retrofuturist wrote:I wonder whether some paths/meditations/actions/whatever-you-want-to-call-them lead into the rabbits burrow of dukkha better than they lead out of it. It's quite plausible that the path that leads you to be aware of the problem, is quite a different path to that which can cure the problem, once diagnosed.

I.e. does the Path inevitably involve "dark night" difficult patches and/or do some approaches bring up unnecessary difficulties that could be avoided?

I think his essay is based on buddhist meditation, and by asking him if the risks are worth Enlightenment if reincarnation doesn't exist, you're taking it out of context, since Enlightenment, the ultimate goal of buddhist's practice and meditation, is to put an end to the everlasting cycle of rebirths, if I understood correctly.

Last edited by Bagoba on Thu May 17, 2012 8:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

"This path is a thorough investigation and understanding of the limitations of the mortal condition of the body and mind. Now you're developing the ability to turn away from the conditioned and to release your identity from mortality." Ajan Sumedho, "Mindfulness, the path to the Deathless." http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/deathless.pdf

On another note, I used to practice Vajrayana buddhism, and our Lama was always warning us to never undertake any Vajrayana meditation practices without proper guidance, because of the risks involved (which seems to be consistent with the cases you mention). Some Vajrayana meditation practices are actually forbidden to newcomers, while others can only be practiced by very advanced practitioners, and so on...

"This path is a thorough investigation and understanding of the limitations of the mortal condition of the body and mind. Now you're developing the ability to turn away from the conditioned and to release your identity from mortality." Ajan Sumedho, "Mindfulness, the path to the Deathless." http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/deathless.pdf

Bagoba wrote:I think his essay is based on buddhist meditation, and by asking him if the risks are worth Enlightenment if reincarnation doesn't exist, you're taking it out of context, since Enlightenment, the ultimate goal of buddhist's practice and meditation, is to put an end to the everlasting cycle of rebirths, if I understood correctly.

"This path is a thorough investigation and understanding of the limitations of the mortal condition of the body and mind. Now you're developing the ability to turn away from the conditioned and to release your identity from mortality." Ajan Sumedho, "Mindfulness, the path to the Deathless." http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/deathless.pdf

We think we shall be vulnerable without hatred, greed and delusion. But we learn that in truth, the poisons cause us to be constantly, heartbreakingly vulnerable. So meditation seems dangerous to those who have not yet realised that there is no safety to settle for. And on the bright side, we are wrong in all our misgivings.

Ron Crouch wrote:I wanted to offer myself up for questions directly about this essay and what I meant by it, since there is a lot of speculation here. Despite having a last name that is suspiciously close to "grouch" and having written such a rough essay, I'm actually a pretty easy going person! I really enjoy answering questions, so don't hesitate to ask me directly. What would you like to know?

Welcome to Dhamma Wheel.

I don't have any questions per se, but do feel free to respond to any of the comments that have been made by myself or others.

If you do decide to respond to my comments, I'll give you some context, so you know how best to pitch your points. I follow the Noble Eightfold Path of the Buddha, as opposed to any of the subsequent "paths" developed by subsequent commentators (e.g. Buddhaghosa) or meditation "masters" (e.g. Mahasi, Ingram). First and foremost, I am a Buddha-dhamma practitioner - my path is based on the Buddha's Dhamma, as much as is it is possible for me to do so. If you can make your points with recourse to the Buddha's teaching, rather than the teachings/terminology/frameworks of later Buddhist sects/lineages/teachers/subcultures then I will be all ears. I have nothing inherently against those other paths and teachings, other than that they are not mine - they are not Buddhavacana, so they are not my path to follow.

... and this reservation is in accordance with the Buddha's instructions on the "four great references" in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta.

Mahaparinibbana Sutta wrote:And there the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Now, bhikkhus, I shall make known to you the four great references. Listen and pay heed to my words." And those bhikkhus answered, saying:

"So be it, Lord."

Then the Blessed One said: "In this fashion, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu might speak: 'Face to face with the Blessed One, brethren, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation'; or: 'In an abode of such and such a name lives a community with elders and a chief. Face to face with that community, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation'; or: 'In an abode of such and such a name live several bhikkhus who are elders, who are learned, who have accomplished their course, who are preservers of the Dhamma, the Discipline, and the Summaries. Face to face with those elders, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation'; or: 'In an abode of such and such a name lives a single bhikkhu who is an elder, who is learned, who has accomplished his course, who is a preserver of the Dhamma, the Discipline, and the Summaries. Face to face with that elder, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation.'

"In such a case, bhikkhus, the declaration of such a bhikkhu is neither to be received with approval nor with scorn. Without approval and without scorn, but carefully studying the sentences word by word, one should trace them in the Discourses and verify them by the Discipline. If they are neither traceable in the Discourses nor verifiable by the Discipline, one must conclude thus: 'Certainly, this is not the Blessed One's utterance; this has been misunderstood by that bhikkhu — or by that community, or by those elders, or by that elder.' In that way, bhikkhus, you should reject it. But if the sentences concerned are traceable in the Discourses and verifiable by the Discipline, then one must conclude thus: 'Certainly, this is the Blessed One's utterance; this has been well understood by that bhikkhu — or by that community, or by those elders, or by that elder.' And in that way, bhikkhus, you may accept it on the first, second, third, or fourth reference. These, bhikkhus, are the four great references for you to preserve."

So yeah, if you do wish to respond, you can at least see what I consider authorative, and can hopefully understand why I believe pushing post-Buddha paths as Buddha-dhamma is wrong, and (depending perhaps on your intention) slanderous to the Buddha.

AN 2.23 wrote:"Monks, these two slander the Tathagata. Which two? He who explains what was not said or spoken by the Tathagata as said or spoken by the Tathagata. And he who explains what was said or spoken by the Tathagata as not said or spoken by the Tathagata. These are two who slander the Tathagata."

Call what you teach meditation, liberating, enlightening, or whatever you like, but calling it Buddha-dhamma is disingenuous, when it bears little or no relation to it, as is the case with respect to your earlier quoted blog entry on "dark night" - a notion or experience without any real parallel in the teachings of the Sutta Pitaka. Reflecting and repackaging the teaching of a particular meditation sub-culture does not maketh the Buddhadhamma.

P.S. I like that 'artwork' picture of you on your site, it makes you look like Hank Scorpio.

Metta,Retro.

"When we transcend one level of truth, the new level becomes what is true for us. The previous one is now false. What one experiences may not be what is experienced by the world in general, but that may well be truer. (Ven. Nanananda)

“I hope, Anuruddha, that you are all living in concord, with mutual appreciation, without disputing, blending like milk and water, viewing each other with kindly eyes.” (MN 31)

retrofuturist wrote:Call what you teach meditation, liberating, enlightening, or whatever you like, but calling it Buddha-dhamma is disingenuous, when it talks bears little or no relation to it, as is the case with respect to your earlier quoted blog entry on "dark night", a notion or experience without any real parallel to the teachings of the Sutta Pitaka.

I guess it just shows that different people interpret the suttas quite differently. I see accounts of difficulties and struggles all over the Sutta Pitaka, as I've pointed out above.

Wow - that's a lot. I'm going to try and address everyone as succinctly as possible. So forgive me if I don't give each point a full answer.

@ retrofuturist - If you are saying that what Buddhaghosa wrote (the Vissudimagga) isn't buddhism then you're pretty much saying that most of mainstream Theravada isn't really buddhism and you pretty much have a beef with all of what is currently considered buddhism. If you don't allow any commentary and no further works by enlightened folks beyond the tipitaka, well then Theravada's out, so is Tibetan, so is Zen, Pure Land, and modern teachers like Jack Kornfield or Joseph Golstein - forget about it! I don't have much to say to that except that it sure sounds like you have some pretty serious standards for what is in or out when it comes to buddhism. Good luck with that. If it leads you to enlightenment let everyone know so they can get away from all the garbage.

P.S. - I totally dig the Hank Scorpio reference - made my week!

@mikenz66- regarding the question of whether the path inevitably leads to a dark night, the answer is, unfortunately, "it depends." The issue rests on the kind of meditation a person is doing. In classical buddhism there is a distinction made between "wet" and "dry" insight, which is the difference between the insight knowledges (nanas) experienced directly after deep concentration ("wet" = jhana) or without deep concentration ("dry" = no jhana). If you are doing it wet, then the dukkha nanas (dark night stages) seem like a breeze, a mild bit of turbulence in an otherwise smooth flight. If you are doing it dry however, then the dukkha nanas can really rock your world - and not in a good way. In the old texts and commentaries they divide it up into these two types as if they were all or nothing, but in truth almost everyone mixes it up and so the ambiguous answer of "it depends." Essentially, it depends on how deep your concentration is and how well you use it to move through the insight stages. So, while everyone will go through the insights into suffering in one form or another, how you experience it depends a lot on your concentration. Stronger concentration equals less difficulty.Hope that helps.

@Challenge 23 - you really have two questions there - "what's up with the circular argument?" and "what's enlightenment?" The first one is easy so I'll take that one first: I'm not appealing to your logic. I may have a PhD but I don't write on my website from an academic perspective. If anyone is looking to me for that please look elsewhere! On a deeper level though, the point I'm trying to make is that the urge to become enlightened is actually an utterly irrational one to the self. One way of looking at enlightenment is that it is the task of putting the self completely out of business, firing it from its job, taking away its crown and authority, and seeing the whole self-improvement project as the joke it is.So here is the rub - when "you" read the essay, it is actually the self that is really taking in the info and filtering through it to see if it fits its agenda (unless you're already awake). That is why soooo many essays on enlightenment appeal to the self: be a better person, be nice all the time, master your emotions, have a yoga body, learn French, have whiter teeth, etc. My point with this essay was to, in a sense, be utterly real and introduce an radically different view from all of that. When you are trying to meditate to be a better person, that's fine. But don't be fooled. That is not what it's about. When you finally get what it's about the idea of being a better person is absurd because that is a motive that only a self can have. If you are meditating to become enlightened (and I'm talking for real now, not the "idea" of being enlightened, but the reality of it) then there really is a deep yearning to be free from the self that is truly irrational to the self. The essay was an attempt to speak directly to that yearning without appealing to any self-improvement projects that people might have in mind.

Also - as regards Dr. Britton's research at Brown: I'm collaborating with her on this research and we presented on this topic together at the Buddhist Geeks conference in Los Angeles last year. For the project I've interviewed many well-established and mature practitioners (some teachers themselves) from every buddhist tradition that I know of (literally) on their experience of the dark night. The similarities between their accounts is striking. I've also talked informally with people in the Christian contemplative tradition who describe a very similar process. My suspicion is that this isn't a "buddhist thing" or "christian thing" but rather it's a human thing. I believe Dr. Britton is putting together a grant proposal for NIMH and wants to get the word out about this. That's part of where I come in - I want to get psychologists more aware that the meditation that they are having so many clients practicing (in DBT, MBSR, ACT, and a bunch of other therapies) might not be as harmless as it first appears. As it stands, it is being given out to people like aspirin. And some of these clients learning it are suicidal. There needs to be more warning about the destabilizing effects for psychologists. And more information for practitioners in general, and that is where the essay (and this reaching out to people) comes into play. I won't go into numbers, but I've been contacted by many people who were introduced to meditation through therapy or some self-improvement group, who started doing it sincerely, found that it helped a lot at first, and then became destabilized. Some to the point of hospitalization. A lot of them get referred to me for meditation teaching from other teachers and psychologists who think my background in psychology might help. Most psychologists have no idea what to do about this and are shocked that it could even happen, so these folks are usually cut adrift without any real help for years. They wander in and out of dharma scenes and therapy circles where they hope to get relief but no one really talks about the dark night or normalizes the experience. I cringe to think about how many people are out there going through that right now. So yes, maybe warning people away from meditation may seem a bit over the top in the essay, but man, if you had seen what I've seen you'd really understand.

@Travis - that's it exactly. First noble truth in action. As it is felt rather than "believed."

Ron Crouch wrote:@ retrofuturist - If you are saying that what Buddhaghosa wrote (the Vissudimagga) isn't buddhism then you're pretty much saying that most of mainstream Theravada isn't really buddhism and you pretty much have a beef with all of what is currently considered buddhism.

No, that's not what I'm saying... and you're continuing to be very loose and free-wheeling with your definitions. What I'm doing is being diligent in the differentiation between what is Buddha-dhamma (i.e. the Dhamma of the Buddha) and Buddha-vacana (i.e. the Voice of the Buddha) and what is not. Everything else that everyone (wise or dull) has come up with (valuable or worthless), which has since come to being, that may have been since placed under the catch-all of "Buddhism" or any of the discrete Buddhist traditions is not the Buddha's Dhamma - it is their Dhamma. In summary, Buddha-dhamma is a subset of Buddhism. Whether their unique Dhamma-additions are efficacious or not is for them to claim, but the market-place of such additions is not my domain... when they overstep their domain and say their own unique sectarian teachings are Buddha-dhamma, then I may point out that they are not, out of respect for my Teacher, who did not like him or his Dhamma to be misrepresented. It is not good to hi-jack the Buddha's good name and leverage that for the dissemination of one's own Dharma.

Ron Crouch wrote:If you don't allow any commentary and no further works by enlightened folks beyond the tipitaka, well then Theravada's out, so is Tibetan, so is Zen, Pure Land, and modern teachers like Jack Kornfield or Joseph Golstein - forget about it!

As I said before, I have no inherent objections to those things... only that these additions aren't for me, if what they say cannot be resolved back to the suttas. To me, the Buddha is The Teacher. Others may choose other teachers and other Dhammas if that's for them. People may do what they like so long as they are not fraudulently purporting to be something they're not.

Ron Crouch wrote:I don't have much to say to that except that it sure sounds like you have some pretty serious standards for what is in or out when it comes to buddhism.

When it comes to what I practice, yes... and when it comes to what is Buddhavacana, yes, you're right... I do have serious standards. There is more than enough in the Sutta Pitaka to keep me going for this lifetime.

Ron Crouch wrote:Good luck with that.

Thanks. It's going great.

Ron Crouch wrote:If it leads you to enlightenment let everyone know so they can get away from all the garbage.

The Buddha-dhamma leads to enlightenment, but I don't see how that fact has any bearing on whether subsequent sectarian additions are "garbage" or not. Your statement is non-sequitur. For all I know, your excursions through the Dark Night may well lead to enlightenment too, since what do I know about the efficacy of your path when I have not walked it? I can only speak of how what you describe of it correlates to my path, and how it correlates (or otherwise) to the teachings of the Buddha.... and that is what I have done. This is done not to cause upset, but to differentiate what is and is not the Buddha's teaching, for the benefit of anyone who may care who is interested in the blessed one's teaching, out of conviction that he is indeed the unsurpassable teacher.

The Buddha is cool.

Metta,Retro.

"When we transcend one level of truth, the new level becomes what is true for us. The previous one is now false. What one experiences may not be what is experienced by the world in general, but that may well be truer. (Ven. Nanananda)

“I hope, Anuruddha, that you are all living in concord, with mutual appreciation, without disputing, blending like milk and water, viewing each other with kindly eyes.” (MN 31)